Detailed Action
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received January 23,
2025 for application number 19/035,643. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of
the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, IDS
and Claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-010551, filed on January 26, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 23, 2025, and July 8, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified
function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-11, are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
1. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain
meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
2. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong
test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means”
that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific
structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language,
typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word
or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure,
material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient
structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
3. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the
claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without
reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
4. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted
under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or
“step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but
are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without
reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded
by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In Claim 1:
“Wherein the controller is configured to operate the electronic device with power supply from the first battery in a first mode”
In Claim 2:
“The controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the first condition is detected in the first mode”
In Claim 3:
“The controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the second condition is detected in the first mode”
In Claim 4:
“Further comprising: a detector configured to detect the temperature of the second battery”
“The controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the third condition is determined in the first mode”
In Claim 5:
“Further comprising: a detector configured to detect the temperature of the second battery”
“The controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the fourth condition is determined in the first mode”
In Claim 6:
“Further comprising: a detector configured to detect the voltage of the second battery”
“The controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the fifth condition is determined in the first mode”
In Claim 7:
“The controller is configured to estimate that the second battery has the predetermined degree based on first information related to the second battery”
In Claim 8:
“The controller is configured to estimate that the second battery is in the predetermined abnormal condition based on second information related to the second battery”
In Claim 9:
“Wherein the controller is configured to control the notifier to provide different notifications based on the determination of whether switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible”
In Claim 10:
“The controller is configured to control the notifier to change the manner of notification to the user based on the determination of whether switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible”
In Claim 11:
“Wherein the controller is configured to display a first image on the display when the number of detections of the predetermined operation satisfies a first count, and it is determined that switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible”
6. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the
specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
7. A review of the Specification shows there does appear to provide disclosure to the
structure associated with a “controller”. Specifically, the instance of “controller” as referenced on page 11, as “the controller 10 may include at least one processor, such as a CPU or a digital signal processor (DSP). The controller 10 may be an integrated circuit such as a system-on-chip (SoC)”. A “detector”, as referenced on page 15, as “the detector may include a detector such as a temperature sensor…the detector may include a detector such as a voltage sensor” and FIG. 2. As such, the citations above in reference to a “controller” and “detector” are interpreted to cover the structure provided in the specification.
8. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient
structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations
recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites the phrase “the manner of notification” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes the phrase “the manner of notification” to mean “a manner of notification”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form
the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent
or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Banyas (US 5,859,481 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Banyas teaches:
“An electronic device comprising: a first battery and a second battery” ([C3:L51-54][FIGS. 1 & 3] The sensor circuitry 80 incudes a pair of connections 100 for interconnecting the main battery 25 (i.e. first battery) and auxiliary battery 40 (i.e. second battery) to the power circuitry of the telephone unit 10 (i.e. electronic device);
“A controller, wherein the controller is configured to operate the electronic device with power supply from the first battery in a first mode” ([C3:L57-59]The switches 120 and 115 are controlled by a microprocessor 125 (i.e. controller) in response to control signals received from a current sensor 130 and a voltage sensor 135; [C6-C7: L66-67/L1] In the normal mode of operation (i.e. a first mode), the auxiliary battery 40 is not connected, and the source of power for the cellular telephone unit 10 (i.e. electronic device) is the main battery 25 (i.e. first battery));
“Operate the electronic device with power supply from the second battery in a second mode” ([C7:L16-18] If the voltage of the auxiliary battery 40 (i.e. second battery) is high enough, the microprocessor 125 will close switch 120 (i.e. a second mode), enabling the cellular telephone unit 10 (i.e. electronic device) to draw current from the auxiliary battery 40);
“Detect a predetermined operation by a user of electronic device” (C3:L27-30) Switching between the batteries is responsive to changes in current initiated by placement or removal of the telephone unit 10 from the housing 55 (i.e. detect a predetermined operation by a user of electronic device));
“Determine whether switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible based on at least one of a first state of the electronic device and a second state of the second battery when the predetermined operation is detected in the first mode” ([C7:L8-16] When an auxiliary battery 40 is connected, a voltage drop is created across resistor 200 and the voltage of the auxiliary battery 40 can be read through voltage sensor 135. The microprocessor 125 then determines if the auxiliary battery 40 has sufficient voltage to operate the cellular telephone unit 10 (i.e. determining whether switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible). If the voltage of the auxiliary battery 40 is too low to operate the cellular telephone unit 10, the microprocessor 125 will do nothing and the phone will continue to be powered by the main battery 25 (i.e. a second state of the second battery (initiated by placement or removal of telephone unit 10 from the housing 55))).
Regarding Claim 6, Banyas teaches:
“The electronic device according to claim 1” ([C3:L51-54] The sensor circuitry 80 incudes a pair of connections 100 for interconnecting the main battery 25 (i.e. first battery) and auxiliary battery 40 (i.e. second battery) to the power circuitry of the telephone unit 10 (i.e. electronic device);
“Further comprising: a detector configured to detect the voltage of the second battery” ([C1:L61-64] A voltage sensor (i.e. detector) measures the voltage level present within the auxiliary battery 40 (i.e. second battery) to determine if the voltage level meets a predetermined threshold voltage);
“The second state includes a fifth condition where the detected voltage is lower than a third threshold” ([C6:L19-23] Sufficient voltage is based upon whether the auxiliary battery 40 can supply a pre-selected threshold voltage. When the auxiliary battery voltage falls below the predetermined threshold (i.e. detected voltage is lower than a third threshold), a signal is generated indicating this to the microprocessor 125);
“The controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the fifth condition is determined in the first mode” (C7:L13-16] If the voltage of the auxiliary battery 40 is too low to operate the cellular telephone unit 10, the microprocessor 125 will do nothing and the phone will continue to be powered by the main battery 25 (i.e. controller configured to determine switching from the first mode to the second mode not possible)).
Regarding Claim 12, Banyas teaches:
“A method for operating an electronic device comprising a first battery and a second battery” ([C3:L51-54] [FIGS. 2 & 3] The sensor circuitry 80 incudes a pair of connections 100 for interconnecting the main battery 25 (i.e. first battery) and auxiliary battery 40 (i.e. second battery) to the power circuitry of the telephone unit 10 (i.e. electronic device));
“The method comprising: operating the electronic device in a first mode using power supplied from the first battery” ([C6-7:L66-67/L1] In the normal mode of operation (i.e. a first mode), the auxiliary battery 40 is not connected, and the source of power for the cellular telephone unit 10 (i.e. electronic device) is the main battery 25 (i.e. first battery));
“Operating the electronic device in a second mode using power supplied from the second battery” ([C7:L16-18] If the voltage of the auxiliary battery 40 (i.e. second battery) is high enough, the microprocessor 125 will close switch 120 (i.e. a second mode), enabling the cellular telephone unit 10 (i.e. electronic device) to draw current from the auxiliary battery 40);
“Detecting a predetermined operation by a user of the electronic device” ([C3:27-30] Switching between the batteries is responsive to changes in current initiated by placement or removal of the telephone unit 10 from the housing 55 (i.e. detect a predetermined operation by a user of electronic device));
“Determining whether switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible based on at least one of a first state of the electronic device and a second state of the second battery when the predetermined operation is detected in the first mode” ([C7:L8-16] When an auxiliary battery 40 is connected, a voltage drop is created across resistor 200 and the voltage of the auxiliary battery 40 can be read through voltage sensor 135. The microprocessor 125 then determines if the auxiliary battery 40 has sufficient voltage to operate the cellular telephone unit 10 (i.e. determining whether switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible). If the voltage of the auxiliary battery 40 is too low to operate the cellular telephone unit 10, the microprocessor 125 will do nothing and the phone will continue to be powered by the main battery 25 (i.e. a second state of the second battery (initiated by placement or removal of telephone unit 10 from the housing 55)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under
35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
non-obviousness.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banyas in view of view of Li et al. (US 2011/0076982 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Banyas teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1”.
Banyas further discloses:
“the controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the first condition is detected in the first mode” ([C7:L13-16] If the voltage of the auxiliary battery 40 is too low to operate the cellular telephone unit 10, the microprocessor 125 will do nothing and the phone will continue to be powered by the main battery 25 (i.e. not enough power to switch power sources, will remain with current battery in the current mode).
Banyas does not teach:
“Wherein the first state includes a first condition in which the electronic device is executing a voice call function”
However, in the analogous art of routing emergency calls over multiple data networks Li does teach:
“Wherein the first state includes a first condition in which the electronic device is executing a voice call function” ([0143] The UE (User Equipment) 110 may return to the normal operating mode when the user initiates a normal voice call, a SMS, or a data call).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Banyas and Li before him, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Li’s multiple voice call modes in Banyas’ apparatus for sensing an auxiliary battery connected to a cellular telephone to facilitate routing an emergency call to a correct public safety answering point (PSAP) and allowing the PSAP to retrieve a caller's callback number ([0001] Li).
Regarding Claim 3, Banyas teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1”.
Banyas further discloses:
“the controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the first condition is detected in the first mode” ([C7:L13-16 If the voltage of the auxiliary battery 40 is too low to operate the cellular telephone unit 10, the microprocessor 125 will do nothing and the phone will continue to be powered by the main battery 25 (i.e. not enough power to switch power sources, will remain with current battery in the current mode).
Li discloses:
“Wherein the first state includes a second condition in which the electronic device is executing a callback function” ([0090] UE (User Equipment) 110 may enter an emergency callback mode (ECM) without sending a domain notification SMS message).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Banyas and Li before him, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Li’s multiple voice call modes in Banyas’ apparatus for sensing an auxiliary battery connected to a cellular telephone to facilitate routing an emergency call to a correct public safety answering point (PSAP) and allowing the PSAP to retrieve a caller's callback number ([0001] Li).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banyas in view of view of Slaby et al. (US 2016/0218556 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Banyas teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1”.
Banyas does not teach:
“Further comprising: a detector configured to detect the temperature of the second battery”
“Wherein the second state includes a third condition where the detected temperature is higher than a first threshold”
“The controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the third condition is determined in the first mode”
However, in the analogous art of a battery controller configured to receive sensor input data Slaby does disclose:
“Further comprising: a detector configured to detect the temperature of the second battery” ([0026] the battery controller 110 can receive a sensor input 122 from a temperature sensor (e.g., a sensor 124) (i.e. a detector configured to detect temperature), and then the controller logic 120 can initiate a switch from the secondary battery 104 (i.e. based on temperature of the second battery) to the primary battery 102 as the power source based on the detected temperature and/or operating condition; [0025] In aspects of battery disconnect safeguard, other environmental factors may also be considered, such as exposure of the secondary battery to cold or heat outside of an expected operating temperature range (i.e. temperature of the battery));
“Wherein the second state includes a third condition where the detected temperature is higher than a first threshold” ([0025] other environmental factors may also be considered, such as exposure of the secondary battery to cold or heat outside of an expected operating temperature range. For example, a secondary battery that is configured external to the mobile device may become overheated when exposed to direct sunlight (i.e. detected temperature higher than a first threshold), such as the external wired secondary battery shown at 202 (FIG. 2));
“The controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the third condition is determined in the first mode” ([0026] the controller logic 120 of the battery controller 110 can initiate the battery switch circuit 118 to switch back to the secondary battery 104 from the primary battery 102 as the power source of the components of the mobile device 100 when the moisture is no longer detected (e.g., has dried) and/or when the temperature and other conditions return to an expected operating range; a secondary battery may not perform to power the mobile device 100 (i.e. determine switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible) if left in a cold (i.e. or hot) environment, such as outside or in a vehicle).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Banyas and Slaby before him, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Slaby’s sensors observing temperature and voltage data in Banyas’ apparatus for sensing an auxiliary battery connected to a cellular telephone to avoid loss of power due to damage of a secondary battery ([0001] Slaby).
Regarding Claim 5, Banyas teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1”.
Slaby discloses:
“The electronic device, further comprising: a detector configured to detect the temperature of the second battery” ([0026] the battery controller 110 can receive a sensor input 122 from a temperature sensor (e.g., a sensor 124) (i.e. a detector configured to detect temperature), and then the controller logic 120 can initiate a switch from the secondary battery 104 (i.e. based on temperature of the second battery) to the primary battery 102 as the power source based on the detected temperature and/or operating condition);
“Wherein the second state includes a fourth condition where the detected temperature is lower than a second threshold” ([0026] Additionally, a secondary battery may not perform to power the mobile device 100 if left in a cold environment, such as outside or in a vehicle (i.e. detected temperature lower than a second threshold));
“The controller is configured to determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the fourth condition is determined in the first mode” ([0026] the controller logic 120 of the battery controller 110 can initiate the battery switch circuit 118 to switch back to the secondary battery 104 from the primary battery 102 as the power source of the components of the mobile device 100 when the moisture is no longer detected (e.g., has dried) and/or when the temperature and other conditions return to an expected operating range; a secondary battery may not perform to power the mobile device 100 (i.e. determine switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible) if left in a cold environment, such as outside or in a vehicle).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Banyas and Slaby before him, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Slaby’s sensors observing temperature and voltage data in Banyas’ apparatus for sensing an auxiliary battery connected to a cellular telephone to avoid loss of power due to damage of a secondary battery ([0001] Slaby).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banyas in view of White et al. (US 2014/0167780 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Banyas teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1”.
Banyas does not teach:
“Wherein the second state includes a sixth condition in which the second battery has a predetermined degree of deterioration”
“The controller is configured to estimate that the second battery has the predetermined degree based on first information related to the second battery”
“Determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the sixth condition is determined in the first mode”
However, in the analogous art of fault detection in rechargeable batteries White does disclose:
“Wherein the second state includes a sixth condition in which the second battery has a predetermined degree of deterioration” ([0021] The method may include setting a state-of-health flag (i.e. predetermined degree of deterioration) for the battery cell when the counted number of times exceeds a second count threshold; [0070] According to one embodiment, the state-of-health flag may take multiple values, where each value indicates a different severity of the condition of the battery cell);
“The controller is configured to estimate that the second battery has the predetermined degree based on first information related to the second battery” ([0065] During historical profile evaluation in FIG. 8, an amount of time or amount of charge consumed while balancing the battery cell (FIG 1. is a block diagram illustrating a microprocessor (i.e. controller) balancing a plurality of battery cells) is recorded for a relatively short duration, in comparison to the recording of FIG. 7. The amount of time spent balancing may be used, in part, to estimate a number of Coulombs the battery cell was out of balance. When this estimated number of Coulombs exceeds a Coulomb threshold, a state-of-health event may be logged (i.e. predetermined degree based on first information));
“Determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the sixth condition is determined in the first mode” ([0082] When the value of the state-of-health flag is a second value, such as `2`, the method 1000 proceeds to block 1022 to report the battery cell and then to block 1024 to disable charging for the battery cell. When the battery cell is part of a battery pack system module, discharging for the module may also be disabled at block 1024).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Banyas and White before him, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate White’s historical Coulomb data for informing state-of-health flags associated with battery cells in Banyas’ apparatus for sensing an auxiliary battery connected to a cellular telephone to maintain health and correct operation of a battery system ([0005] White).
Regarding Claim 8, Banyas teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1”.
White discloses:
“Wherein the second state includes a seventh condition in which the second battery is in a predetermined abnormal condition” ([0019] The microprocessor of the apparatus may be configured to mark the at least one battery cell faulty when the number of times exceeds a threshold value based, in part, on a number of times the at least one battery cell is balanced to other battery cells of the plurality of battery cells (i.e. predetermined abnormal condition));
“The controller is configured to estimate that the second battery is in the predetermined abnormal condition based on second information related to the second battery” ([0057] The battery cell may be determined as faulty (i.e. by way of the microprocessor) based, in part, on a history of the counter. That is, the history of the counter, such as when and how much the counter has been incremented, may be compared to historical profiles of known faulty battery cells to determine if the counter's history is similar to a known historical profile (i.e. predetermined abnormal condition));
“Determine that switching from the first mode to the second mode is not possible when the seventh condition is determined in the first mode” ([0060] Referring back to FIG. 4, if a battery cell is determined as faulty as block 410, the battery cell is marked as faulty at block 412. When the battery cell is marked as faulty, the battery cell may be disconnected or an administrator may be notified of the fault).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Banyas and White before him, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate White’s historical Coulomb data for informing state-of-health flags associated with battery cells in Banyas’ apparatus for sensing an auxiliary battery connected to a cellular telephone to maintain health and correct operation of a battery system ([0005] White).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banyas in view of Hong et al. (US 2017/0033587 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Banyas teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1”.
Banyas does not teach:
“The electronic device further comprising: a notifier’
“Wherein the controller is configured to control the notifier to provide different notifications based on the determination of whether switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible”
However, in the analogous art of a system for selecting a battery pack of a plurality of battery packs Hong does disclose:
“The electronic device further comprising: a notifier” ([0037] The charger indicators 150 and battery indicator 166 (i.e. notifier) provide human-perceptible indications)
“Wherein the controller is configured to control the notifier to provide different notifications based on the determination of whether switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible” ([0076] the device indicator 184 may be a multi-color light emitting diode that flashes red when the battery pack 104 is not an optimal battery pack, and flashes green when the battery pack 104 is the optimal battery pack; [0034] Communications between the dynamic tag 164 and the battery tag reader 152 provide the slotted wireless charger 102a, particularly the optimal battery selection device 129 of the slot controller 122a, with data forming battery information 165 (see FIG. 5). For instance, the tag battery controller 160a detects the charge level of the battery cells 132 and provides an indication of the charge level of the battery cells 132 to the slot controller 122a; [0079] If no compatible battery pack is present on the wireless charger 102, a human-recognizable indication is provided by the wireless charger 102 of the lack of a substitute battery pack).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Banyas and Hong before him, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Hong’s indicators for switching to an optimal battery pack in Banyas’ apparatus for sensing an auxiliary battery connected to a cellular telephone to improve systems and methods for identifying a wirelessly charging battery ([0003] Hong).
Regarding Claim 10, Banyas teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1”.
Hong discloses:
“The electronic device, further comprising a notifier” ([0037] The charger indicators 150 and battery indicator 166 (i.e. notifier) provide human-perceptible indications);
“Wherein the controller is configured to control the notifier to change the manner of notification to the user based on the determination of whether switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible” ([0079] If no compatible battery pack is present on the wireless charger 102, a human-recognizable indication is provided by the wireless charger 102 of the lack of a substitute battery pack. For instance, the wireless charger 102 may include a no-battery indicator (e.g., light emitting diode, speaker, or vibration generator) that is driven to flash, beep, or vibrate to indicate to a user that no substitute battery pack was found).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Banyas and Hong before him, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Hong’s indicators for switching to an optimal battery pack in Banyas’ apparatus for sensing an auxiliary battery connected to a cellular telephone to improve systems and methods for identifying a wirelessly charging battery ([0003] Hong).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banyas in view of Fujimori et al. (US 2023/0022214 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Banyas teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1”.
Banyas does not teach:
“The electronic device, further comprising; a display”
“Wherein the controller is configured to display a first image on the display when the number of detections of the predetermined operation satisfies a first count and it is determined that switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible”
“Display a second image on the display when the number of detections of the predetermined operation satisfies a second count that is greater than the first count and it is determined that switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible”
However, in the analogous art of controlling the quality of multiple images via a display device Fujimori does teach:
“The electronic device, further comprising; a display” ([0006] An aspect of the present disclosure is directed to a display device including display);
“Wherein the controller is configured to display a first image on the display when the number of detections of the predetermined operation satisfies a first count and it is determined that switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible” ([0078] The expansion button 55A is a button for expanding the display size of the display image 51 (i.e. first image). When an operation of selecting the expansion button 55A has been detected as the selection operation (i.e. the number of detections of the predetermined operation satisfies a first count), the display controller 185 judges that an operation of expanding the display size of the display image 51 has been started, and displays the frame image 57 represented by dotted lines shown in FIG. 6 on the projection surface 7A (i.e. as demonstrated in FIG.7, it is determined that switching to the expanded image is possible after the predetermined operation); [0079] FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the frame image 57 with the display size expanded.
“Display a second image on the display when the number of detections of the predetermined operation satisfies a second count that is greater than the first count and it is determined that switching from the first mode to the second mode is possible” [0080] Then, during a period in which the selection operation of the expansion button 55A is continuously detected (i.e. the number of detections of the predetermined operation satisfies a second count greater than the first count), the display controller 185 judges that the operation of expanding the display size of the display image 51 continues (i.e. display a second image on the display), and changes the display position of the frame image 57 based on the display image 51. Specifically, the display controller 185 displays the display image 51 without changing the display position, and displays the frame image 57 with the display position moved toward the outside of the display image 51 by a predetermined setting at a time (i.e. as demonstrated in FIG.7, it is determined that switching to the expanded image is possible after the predetermined operation); [0079] FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the frame image 57 with the display size expanded).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Banyas and Fujimori before him, the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Fujimori’s expansion button for expanding the size of a display in Banyas’ apparatus for sensing an auxiliary battery connected to a cellular telephone to avoid image deterioration during expansion([0004] Fujimori).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Jared Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-8999.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing
using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is
encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at
http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Andrew Jung can be reached on (571)270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this
application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for
unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about
the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to
the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (tollfree).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access
to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-
1000.
/J.L.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2175
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights